mcp_engram_goal_status

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It lists what the tool returns (traces, momentum signals, relationships) but does not explicitly state that it is a read-only, safe operation. While the purpose implies idempotence, the description could be more transparent about behavioral traits like lack of side effects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two short sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose, what it returns, and its context in commands. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return content (traces, momentum signals, relationships). It is nearly complete for a simple retrieval tool, though it could mention if any prerequisites or permissions are required.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'goal', and the tool description adds no additional meaning beyond 'The goal concept name' already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool gets detailed status for a single goal, listing specific components (recent linked traces, momentum signals, parent/child relationships). It distinguishes itself from siblings like mcp_engram_goal_list and mcp_engram_goal_search by indicating it's for a specific goal and used in 'goal show' and 'goal status <id>'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides context by linking to commands 'goal show' and 'goal status <id>', implying when to use this tool. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the sibling tool names make the differentiation clear. A score of 4 reflects clear usage context without explicit exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.